2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Bountiful and polygamy issue

Bennett

Burnaby Task Force on

Homelessness

Chouhan

North American Occupational

Safety and Health Week

Cantelon

Bicycle safety

Hammell

Child Care Month

H. Bloy

Health care auxiliaries

Conroy

Oral Questions

Tree farm licence land removals

on Vancouver Island

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Hon. C.

Taylor

Horgan

Hon. M.

de Jong

Fleming

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Coroner's inquest into Oak Bay

deaths

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

J. Kwan

Government action on forest

industry

Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Macdonald

Petitions

V. Roddick

G. Robertson

H. Lali

R. Fleming

Second Reading of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26) (continued)

A. Dix

Macdonald

Chouhan

Puchmayr

Chudnovsky

Ralston

Karagianis

H. Lali

Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney

General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Trevena

Fleming

C. Evans

Chouhan

Ralston

[ Page 12183 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I have two announcements today. I actually feel an Emery Barnes moment coming on. I have lots to say, but I'll do my best to restrict my remarks.

We have Rebecca Scott in the gallery today, and she is with the Provincial Child Care Council in British Columbia. She is joined by her friend Susan Detford. Both of them have come today to join with us in what I think is a glorious announcement. We had a target of 2,000 additional child care spaces by 2010. We have in fact exceeded that target and today announced 2,200 new child care spaces across British Columbia.

My second announcement — introduction — is that my mom, Cathy Reid, is with us in the gallery today. She's joined by my dear friend Karen Léger. She and I first worked together more than 30 years ago. I'd ask the House to make all four of these guests incredibly welcome.

S. Fraser: I'd like to introduce a constituent from Port Alberni, a steelworker and a friend, and that's Rita Lagevest. Would you all join me in making her feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: In the gallery today we have Jim and Edna Dewar from beautiful Chase, British Columbia, who I met wandering along the causeway yesterday. They had been told the galleries were full. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome today.

[1335]

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my privilege to introduce 24 Western Washington University students that are here visiting us in the Legislature, learning about our approach to government in Canada and British Columbia. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BOUNTIFUL AND POLYGAMY ISSUE

B. Bennett: I'm speaking today about an issue that my colleague from Nelson-Creston spoke about recently: Bountiful and the practice of polygamy. My colleague is right. This isn't a partisan issue, and I also agree with the hon. member that women and children of Bountiful must be supported. To that end, the Minister of Community Services has helped by placing a social worker in Creston for that very purpose. In addition, the Minister of Education has increased inspections at the two Bountiful schools.

But the real problem with Bountiful is the practice of polygamy. It damages the lives of women and children, and it must be stopped. Eminent lawyer Richard Peck, QC, said in his report to the Attorney General: "After extensive study of the relevant material, I have come to the conclusion that polygamy itself is at the root of the problem. Polygamy is the underlying phenomenon from which all of the other alleged harms flow."

The British Columbia children and women on our television screens from Texas recently illustrate that we must take action to support women and children trapped in this polygamist cult. Over 60 percent of the girls aged 14 to 17 in the Texas compound are either pregnant or already have children.

Polygamy engenders child abuse. Girls in polygamist cults are forced to marry older men and bear their children. Young women are trafficked across the U.S.-Canada border. Boys are ruthlessly ejected from the community at their most impressionable age for the sin of appealing to the younger wives of older men. They become the lost boys of Bountiful.

It's time that

section 293 of the Criminal Code be put to the constitutional test. Our legal system does not inspire public confidence when any law is openly flouted. If the polygamy law is unconstitutional, the federal government can legislate a solution to the problem. If the polygamy law is deemed constitutional, charges can be laid, and we can begin to end this illegal and immoral practice that has been harming women and children for far too long.

BURNABY TASK FORCE ON HOMELESSNESS

R. Chouhan: It started with a phone call. Burnaby-Edmonds resident Wanda Mulholland was becoming increasingly concerned about the growing number of homeless people she was seeing on Burnaby streets. She picked up the phone and called Staff Sgt. John Buis, district commander of the southeast community policing office. In turn, Staff Sgt. Buis started calling social service agencies and representatives of the local faith community as well as government agencies. The result: the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness was established in January 2005.

The Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness leads local initiatives to end homelessness in Burnaby. The task force operates an extreme weather response shelter. This past winter the shelter opened for 41 nights, and 785 bed-nights were utilized. The number of people using the shelter tripled over the previous winter.

The task force also supports the work of the Outreach Resource Centre at the Southside Church, which was established at the end of November 2006. It provides weekly access to health care, outreach workers, food, donated clothing and toiletry items. It assists 50 to 60 people each week and has served over 2,300 meals which are provided by members of the Burnaby faith community.

The Outreach Resource Centre receives no core funding and relies on community donations. I was proud to donate $1,000 from my MLA pay increase to help support the centre. My office serves as one of the three clothing donation drop-off locations.

[1340]

[ Page 12184 ]

I am very proud that the nucleus of the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness was formed in Burnaby-Edmonds. The task force performs extremely important work and is making a positive difference in Burnaby. I am proud to have this opportunity to congratulate the task force on their work.

NORTH AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH WEEK

R. Cantelon: This Monday marked the beginning of the 11th annual North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or as it's known, NAOSH Week.

This year's theme is "Start today! Live it every day!" It's a continent-wide observance of safety involving the United States, Mexico and Canada. It's led every year in Canada by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, with the support from their partners, which include the Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety, and Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

NAOSH week is observed by every province, and citizens of all three countries are encouraged to think and act safely all year round in respect of life, work, home and leisure activity. NAOSH week highlights occupational health and safety every year.

It certainly is a tragedy that's all too common in our society that, at a single moment, a lack of concentration, carelessness, or maybe taking a shortcut can change lives forever, alter careers and crush the hopes and dreams of families. I think the most important thing to understand is that most of these accidents are avoidable. If we just take a moment to pause and think of what we're doing, most of these accidents can be prevented.

I urge every workplace, community and citizen to take ownership of their own health and safety. The danger of unhealthy risks and carelessness can impact our lives and the lives of our families. NAOSH week helps highlight to the public, government and industry the importance of increasing understanding, raising awareness and reducing injuries and illness in the workplace, at home and in the community.

I urge all the MLAs in this House as they go home, to travel safely, take care and urge your citizens to watch out. Be more careful of what you do. Think it through, and do it more slowly and more carefully. Be careful out there.

BICYCLE SAFETY

S. Hammell: I don't own a bike, I don't ride a bike, and I won't make riding a bike part of my lifestyle — though I'd like to — until I feel a lot safer on the roads than I do now. I think I'm pretty typical of most British Columbians.

Between May 26 and June 1 is Bike to Work Week. During this week I think we should speak out about how to make our communities safer for bicycles. Our communities and the transportation systems within have been built to accommodate cars, big trucks and SUVs. These vehicles move fast, make a lot of noise and pollute the air you breathe. Drawing white lines on a pavement for bicycle-only lanes just doesn't cut it for us typical British Columbians.

If our communities were designed to promote the use of bikes, we would see healthier people, a cleaner environment and even, perhaps, fewer cars on the roads. In many countries of Europe there has been a sea change in the number of bicycles being used as daily transportation as a direct result of aggressive government policies.

There are auto-free zones, pedestrian and bicycle traffic lights, intersection modifications to accommodate bicycles, bicycle streets, bike lanes and bike paths. There are reserved bus lanes that can be used for bicyclists but not for cars. There are streets — one way for cars but two ways for bicycles. They have comprehensive strategies for area-wide traffic calming, where, in its most advance form, cars are required to travel at walking speed and pedestrians, children and bicyclists have as much right to the road as a car — revolutionary.

Imagine what the world would look like if we had bicycles using roads as much as cars.

CHILD CARE MONTH

H. Bloy: May is Child Care Month in British Columbia, a time we recognize the vital importance of quality child care in our own lives and our communities. Our Child Care Month is also a time to recognize and celebrate the important role that child care providers and early childhood educators play in ensuring that B.C. children have the best start possible in life.

[1345]

Since 1982, many individuals, organizations and municipalities throughout British Columbia have organized events to celebrate Child Care Month. These events help create awareness in all communities across B.C. of the vital role that quality child care plays in supporting healthy families, healthy children and a strong, thriving province.

Many factors contribute to the creation of quality child care. Child care providers, parents, all levels of government — local, provincial and federal — business, community groups and citizens all have a role to play.

I want to also say a few words about the many outstanding partnerships that have been forged to help expand child care in our communities — the utilization of empty classroom space in school districts, the refurbishing of public buildings in much-needed social housing developments. With each of these partnerships and projects, we are working hard to create a strong, responsive child care system, one that supports choice and flexibility.

As a province, we have a lot to celebrate during Child Care Month. It's always time to celebrate the important work of the province's many thousands of dedicated child care professionals, early childhood educators and the parents, children and families across B.C. Thank you for everything you do, and have a happy Child Care Month.

[ Page 12185 ]

HEALTH CARE AUXILIARIES

K. Conroy: This Saturday, May 10, is Health Care Auxiliary Day. I'm sure there isn't a member in this chamber who doesn't have an auxiliary working in their constituency. However, today I'm going to focus on the work of the auxiliaries in the West Kootenay–Boundary region, in my own and the member for Nelson-Creston's constituencies.

In our area there are 11 auxiliaries. Last year they generated some interesting stats. They have over 600 members, all volunteering their time — an estimate of over 90,000 hours. They donated over $440,000 to health care in our area and over $12,000 to bursaries for students in the region. They raise money through thrift shops, garage sales, flea markets, bake sales, raffles, teas and gift shops. For you new grandpas in the chamber, your local hospital auxiliary gift shop is the best place to get the cutest handmade knitted or crocheted baby gifts available — very reasonable too.

The interesting thing in our area is the commitment of these groups, in spite of the fact that of the 11 groups, only three of them still have a fully functioning hospital, and some of them no longer even have hospitals open in their community.

Rossland, for instance, has had their hospital closed and the building sold for a number of years now, and yet they'll be celebrating their 70th year of providing volunteer auxiliary services to the community. Nakusp, with a downsized facility, is also celebrating a hundred years of volunteer service. The Castlegar group recently raised enough money to build a new facility for their thrift store on land donated by the city. They also continue to operate a gift shop at a hospital, even though it is now a community health centre and no longer provides 24-7 acute care.

I want to commend these dedicated groups for their unwavering support to the health care needs of our area as well as to all the auxiliaries who provide much-needed funds, services and equipment to health care in this province.

D. Hayer: I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are three teachers: Mrs. Sharon Douglas, Mrs. Sue U-Ming, and Mr. Grant Wirtz, and 27 great volunteers, who have taken the time out of their busy

schedule to accompany these students.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have staff here from the legislative counsel branch: Carol Dohan, Vicki Temple, Joan Wong and Heidi McLean. I want to thank them for the splendid work they do in the ministry, and I want the House to make them feel welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

I understand he can introduce his granddaughter by name today.

[1350]

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, her name is Rayne.

Oral Questions

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: In 2004 the B.C. Liberals changed the law to allow the Minister of Forests to remove private lands from tree farm licences. Subsequently, the Minister of Forests authorized the removal of 77,000 hectares from TFL 44, which surrounds Port Alberni. In 2005 the court found that the B.C. Liberal government had dishonoured the Crown in failing to consult with the Hupacasath First Nation.

Since then, raw logs have been leaving my constituency by the shipload, and much of the land base has been impacted severely by extreme logging practices. Today we know that the companies that reap the biggest rewards are two secret government-owned numbered companies.

Can the Minister of Forests explain why the B.C. Liberals changed laws so that two of their secret numbered companies could benefit at the expense of the Hupacasath First Nation?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum, is it a new question?

S. Fraser: I had to think about that for a moment, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Proceed with the new question.

S. Fraser: The question this time…. The government's B.C. Investment Management Corp. now owns 25 percent, one-quarter, of Island Timberlands. That's $166 million worth of shares by two different secret numbered companies.

Brookfield Asset Management owns another 50 percent of Island Timberlands, the same Brookfield Management that scored a windfall when this government waived millions in compensation at the expense of B.C. taxpayers when they released the private lands

[ Page 12186 ]

around Port Alberni, the same Brookfield that benefited from the Jordan River and the north Island giveaways, the same Brookfield that just moved much of its operation to Bermuda to avoid Canadian laws and a civil suit. That's the same Brookfield…

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please.

S. Fraser: …that donated $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals in 2007.

This question to the Minister of Forests: can he explain why secret government companies and Liberal friends get to rake in millions while communities lose jobs, first nations rights are trampled on and the environment is destroyed?

Hon. C. Taylor: Within the new question there was a little piece that referenced the BCIMC, which is the Investment Management Corp. It is this corporation, of course, that does the investments not only for government but for four major pension funds and others as well.

I do want to make it clear on the record that, of course, government does not have any influence with the investment decisions of BCIMC. They are outside of the government entity. Furthermore, the majority of the directors of BCIMC are from the pension funds, and further to that, even the board of directors has no influence on the investment decisions that are made by the Investment Corporation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

S. Fraser: The Minister of Finance has a perspective, and I have a different perspective.

This government is the single shareholder of B.C. Investment Corp., the single shareholder. The government changed the laws to allow the removal of private lands and to allow the raw log exports that we're seeing now from my community and other communities on the Island.

This government failed to consult with first nations and then dishonoured the Crown. This government handed sweetheart deals to their friends and supporters and donors. Now this government and their friends are profiting from it at the expense of the Hupacasath First Nation, the Tseshaht First Nation, the people of Port Alberni and all of the taxpayers in British Columbia.

[1355]

My question to whoever wants to answer it, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Finance: why did this government put their pocketbook and their friends ahead of the workers, communities and first nations in the Alberni Valley?

Hon. C. Taylor: The B.C. Investment Management Corp. makes its investment decisions completely independent from government. In fact, their board of directors includes an appointee from the Teachers Pension Board of Trustees, an appointee from the College Pension Board of Trustees, an appointee from the Public Service Pension Board of Trustees, an appointee from the Municipal Pension Board of Trustees. But even these people on the board do not get involved in investment decisions.

There's a very strong….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Taylor: There's a very strong and clear reason why there has to be separation, and it was identified in 1993 by Justice Seaton in his report, where he said that political decisions must be completely separate from investment decisions, which is correct.

Therefore, when BCIMC was set up by the NDP government, they followed that model. And we follow that model, where there is complete separation. It is the law that government cannot be involved in these investment decisions, and we are not.

J. Horgan: The B.C. Liberals were slapped by the Supreme Court when Justice Smith said that they did a dishonour to the Crown with the deletion of private lands from TFL 44. The then Minister of Forests is now the Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

Today Chief Judith Sayers is on the steps of the courthouse in Vancouver asking a simple question: where is the new relationship? Does it even exist? My question is a simple one for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. Why is it that first nations are always first with rhetoric but always last with respect when it comes to this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, as the member might expect, I won't comment specifically on matters that might be before the court on this day. But I am more than happy to oblige the member in referring to the myriad steps, agreements, cooperations, partnerships that have occurred over the past number of years between the province of British Columbia and first nations right across this province.

It is a record we are very proud of. We take our obligations to consult, to accommodate where appropriate very seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member wishes, I am more than happy and will oblige him in detailing that long list of partnerships, reconciliation agreements, genuine steps towards developing a new relationship. I suspect I'll get that opportunity in a moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 12187 ]

J. Horgan: You would think that a minister once bitten would be twice shy. After the deletions from TFL 44 in 2004 we then had new deletions in TFL 25, in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. At that time three Coast Salish first nations…. Two of them were consulted. One said: "Do not delete these lands without adequate accommodation to our needs and interests." A third, the Beecher Bay band, was never talked to.

Could the Minister of Aboriginal Relations explain to me why it is that he, knowing that he had previously dishonoured the Crown, allowed the Minister of Forests to do it again?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I said a moment ago, we take very seriously the obligations that the Crown has to consult and have taken great steps. We're very proud of those steps to develop a new relationship.

I am, however, trying to reconcile what I'm hearing from the opposition today with a report I read out of the Campbell River newspaper. The NDP had a meeting in Campbell River just a couple of days ago. Of course, they had a political agenda they were trying to advance. It was….

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: It was on the generation of electricity, not a political position that Chief Ken Brown of the Klahoose First Nation shared with the NDP. But what was interesting is that at this public meeting, the Chief wasn't even allowed to speak.

Here's what the Chief said: "All the NDP did was perpetuate more myths. It was appalling, and there was no reference to first nations. Ultimately, they" — the NDP — "are trying to compromise aboriginal economic opportunities."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're not continuing.

R. Fleming: Well, all that shows is that the minister who dishonoured the Crown a couple of years ago is — guess what — back before the courts now.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. She's responsible for the B.C. Investment Management Corp., as she's already acknowledged. She appoints board members. She appoints the chair. Government is the sole shareholder.

Given the manner of how this share purchase was made, how TFL land was given away without first nations consultation and with respect to the deplorable environmental practices going on in these stands of forest, I want to ask the minister: does she think the investment in Island Timberlands meets the IMC's own ethical investment standards?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will repeat that government does not get involved in the investment decisions of the BCIMC. I'm happy to go over again the structure and the reason for the structure, should the member opposite wish it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Cabinet members are aware of the portfolio, and cabinet will be aware that this government has dishonoured the Crown in respect to these lands that we are specifically talking about. The question for the minister is: does she have any concerns about a solely government-owned entity becoming a major investor and now trying to profit from the land that dishonoured the Crown in the first place when those lands were removed?

Hon. C. Taylor: Cabinet is not aware of the portfolio of BCIMC. Government is not involved with the Investment Management Corp. The majority of the members of directors come from the pension funds. The teachers fund, the Public Service Pension Board, the Municipal Pension Board and the College Pension Board form the majority of directors, but even they are not involved in the investment decisions of the corporation.

In fact, BCIMC's corporate governance principles and proxy guidelines are supplemented by conventions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises, the standards of the International Labour Organization.

The board works very hard to ensure that BCIMC is managed well and that the pension funds are well taken care of. I will repeat again: government is not involved in the investment decisions and should not be involved in those investment decisions.

[1405]

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: The Attorney General said yesterday in this House that he couldn't answer questions about how the Premier's office handled disclosure in the B.C. Rail corruption investigation. But exactly a year ago the Premier spoke at length about this issue during estimates debate. The Premier affirmed that his office was not at all involved and that they didn't interfere.

Yesterday we learned that wasn't true. The Premier's deputy, Ken Dobell, was directly involved. Here's the issue. The RCMP was about to interview members of cabinet in its final round of investigations. The Premier's deputy was informed of the nature and content of the documents that were to be the subject of those RCMP interviews. The Premier's deputy was not

[ Page 12188 ]

entitled to know about or discuss that, because he had not signed a legal undertaking to keep that information confidential.

The Attorney General knows the laws. Did those actions not taint that investigation, and what is the Attorney General going to do about it?

Hon. W. Oppal: We've been clear throughout that we're not going to engage in specifics about what's before the courts. It's not a question of what I'm going to do about it. It's what the judge will do about it or won't do about it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's pretty clear the Premier didn't have any trouble answering questions about this last year. The Premier just ten weeks ago told Mike Smyth at The Province : " We have taken every step we can so that there is no political interference." But we now know that the opposite is true. The government broke its undertaking not to disclose any information about the documents to anyone outside the vetting protocol — documents which Justice Bennett has said relate to the consolation prize issue were discussed with the Premier's deputy minister.

These documents, which were to be the subject of RCMP interviews with cabinet ministers and senior officials, were discussed with the Premier's deputy.

My question is again to the Attorney General. By going outside the protocol, by breaking its undertaking to the court, did the government not taint this investigative process? And again, what is the Attorney General going to do about it?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought the answer to that question was made abundantly clear when the Deputy Attorney General sent a letter to that member and stated as follows: "The real point in your letter, however, appears to question whether I have made decisions on the disclosure of government documents independent of political input. I have exercised the responsibility I was given to…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: "I have exercised the responsibility I was given to determine whether to assert privilege on any government documents completely independently, free of any influence. There has been no attempt by anyone to influence my decisions. I have been left entirely to my own judgment to decide these questions, and I have not consulted with anyone other than receiving legal advice from Mr. Copley."

B. Ralston: The Attorney General should be aware, and I'm sure he is aware, that Mr. Seckel only got involved later on. The initial protocol was different. The protocol was set up to preserve the integrity of the investigation while documents were vetted for privilege.

Only four people were legally permitted to see those documents. All of them had to sign an undertaking that they would not disclose the document or discuss it. Mr. Dobell was not on that list. He was not permitted under the process sanctioned by Mr. Justice Dohm to see or hear about the documents, but he did.

The government violated its undertaking, and that is a problem for the integrity of the investigation. The Attorney General, in the independent, non-partisan aspect of his office — the office he holds — has an obligation to protect the integrity of the Crown. How will he exercise that obligation here?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer to that question is clear and simple — by letting the court do its work.

[1410]

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO

OAK BAY DEATHS

M. Farnworth: The Solicitor General is responsible for the coroner's office. Does the Solicitor General have confidence in the decision of the coroner in the Oak Bay inquest to call the Crown prosecutors to testify at the inquest? Does the Solicitor General agree with that decision?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it's clear that all of us in this House want answers as to what took place during that tragic incident of September 2007. The coroner has convened an inquest to determine those very difficult issues of fact and law involving the incident. I think that we should let the coroner's inquest take its course.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We all, I would hope, want to see the truth and the facts on the table. The last time I checked, again, the Solicitor General is responsible for the coroner's office. My question again to the Solicitor General, who is responsible: does he support the decision of the coroner to call Crown prosecutors to testify at the inquest of the Oak Bay tragedy to get to the truth of what happened?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is a very important legal issue involved here. To step back a bit, the Crown took the unusual step of having a regional Crown testify as to what reports, what information and what evidence they had before them before certain moves were made.

Now, the coroner has made an order. I would recommend to the member opposite that perhaps he read the Crown Counsel Act. The Crown Counsel Act confers independence and discretion upon members of the criminal justice branch. That's what is happening here now, and that's why, pursuant to the order made by the coroner, an appeal is being taken of that order.

[ Page 12189 ]

J. Kwan: The coroner's inquest is not a fault-finding mission. Rather, it must investigate such deaths "to assure the community that the facts are not concealed, overlooked or ignored in any way." The coroner goes on to say: "To extend special privileges to any person or groups of persons may compromise the integrity, or appear to, of this process."

By the silence of the Solicitor General, is he saying that the coroner is wrong?

Hon. W. Oppal: Nobody is making any comment about whether the coroner is right or the coroner is wrong. The fact is that he made an order. That order is one in which he has compelled Crown counsel to testify. The criminal justice branch, independently of any political input, has determined — quite correctly in my view — that that order ought to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I have a quick and simple question for the Solicitor General. Does he agree with the appeal of this case right now?

If he doesn't, will he stand up in this House and say that he expects the inquiry to get the answers that they need, to make meaningful suggestions for changes? If they are not able to do that, then everyone involved in the case would not be compelled to testify, and British Columbians might very well not get at the truth of the situation. Does the Solicitor General agree with the appeal?

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: There's nothing in this process that will prevent British Columbians from getting at the truth of what happened. It has got nothing at all to do with the truth. If the opposition wants to play political games with the process, it's their business, but there's an important principle of law involved here. It's set out in the Crown Counsel Act, and that will be determined ultimately in a review to the Supreme Court.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: The Elk Falls sawmill is set to close tomorrow. That's 257 well-paying, family-supporting jobs gone from Campbell River — another 257 jobs lost and zero effort from the Minister of Forests and Range. The workers at the mill commissioned a study that showed the sawmill was viable, but TimberWest has been starved of logs, thanks to this minister's inaction.

I'd like to ask the minister: what will it take before he finally does take some action to help the workers and their families in Vancouver Island's forest-dependent communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if the member is aware of it, so I'll make her aware of it. The CEP have entered into discussions with the owner of the mill with regards to whether they are interested in purchasing the mill or not. They are also doing a business plan and actually doing a business study with regards to that. All of those negotiations, as I understand it, are bound by a confidentiality agreement between the two parties, which isn't unusual with a public company.

I should advise the member, though, that we have provided funds to assist the union with their business study.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The minister has talked about a confidentiality agreement. I would have thought that the minister, if he's the minister responsible for this, would be able to explain what was actually being discussed here, not just being able to say that there were things underway.

The mill is about to close. That is 257 jobs, and that is an issue of policy and inaction. It's an issue of fibre supply, and it's got a knock-on effect with the other mill in Campbell River, the Catalyst pulp mill. The pulp and paper industry is benefiting from the best market for years, and yet the Catalyst mill is still having to close down another machine, which is another 145 jobs at risk.

I have to ask the minister: how long do forest-dependent communities like mine, like Campbell River, have to wait before something is done to protect the jobs in the communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: We met with Catalyst last week. We've told them we will work with them on their fibre issues and try and find solutions for them.

N. Macdonald: Well, for three years this minister has done nothing while B.C.'s most important industry has collapsed. Then we hear that the minister, who won't help anyone, gave a massive cut on the cost of logs from public land to the community of the Minister of Energy. Nobody else gets it. The person who sits beside him gets a massive cut in his…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …cost of logs.

When you think it cannot get worse, we receive an e-mail from Paragon Wood Products saying that the statement made by the minister on Monday during question period was inaccurate. The minister told this House he was working with Paragon on the issues with regards to getting access to logs, and Paragon Wood Products says that no such thing is happening. So the most charitable that one can be is that there has been a misunderstanding.

What specifically is the minister doing to help Paragon Wood Products get logs? He said he's working on something. Paragon has said nothing of the sort. What is it? What specifically is the minister doing to help Paragon Wood Products get logs?

[ Page 12190 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually talked to my staff again about Paragon the other day. We put up sales in that area that Paragon would have an opportunity to bid on. If they wanted to bid on that fibre, then they can buy it. Then they can trade the logs with someone else to get the fibre mix that they want. The member should know that they use a specific portfolio of logs that they need to trade in order to get enough fibre to do what they want to do.

[1420]

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the member sits there, and he always wants to say the government has done nothing. Well, I've got a surprise for him — $185 million in Northern Development Trust, $640 million to the mountain pine beetle strategy, $120 million to mitigating roads, $20 million into forest roads, $25 million into international investment to find places for new product, 257,000 trees replanted last year, $1.8 million invested in value-added.

We worked with the industry. We worked with it aggressively, and quite frankly, it's about time those people on the other side recognized that there has been more investment in the forest industry in British Columbia by this government than they did in ten years.

[End of question period.]

V. Roddick: As the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning, I would like leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

V. Roddick: I rise today to present one-half of a petition, and my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview will present the other half, with over 22,000 signatures collected by members of Greenpeace asking the federal government to pursue and, on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada, adopt truth in labelling — specifically, genetically modified products — which is highlighted in our provincial agriculture plan Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families .

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Fairview with the other half.

G. Robertson: I rise to present a petition — the other half of the petition that the member for Delta South mentioned — from 10,691 people across B.C. concerned about the threats of genetically engineered foods posed to human health and environment. They are calling for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods through right-to-know legislation in this House and federally, which is now compulsory in 40 other nations.

D. Hayer: I'd like to seek leave to make another introduction of students.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have another group of students from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead — 56 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy School, one of the best schools in Canada. They're visiting here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Lali: I request leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to present a petition on your behalf with 288 signatures in the southern Interior.

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the House today is my executive assistant, Sean Murry, and his mother Susan Whitney. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Fleming: This petition to the Legislature is regarding residential care and seniors health care issues. It requires and asks government to annually explain their specific intentions to achieve residential care targets, meet seniors health care needs and, for other reasons, indicators on seniors health care.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate of Bill 26 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the beginning of estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General.

[1425]

L. Krog: I'd ask leave to introduce a bill. I don't recall the Clerk calling for….

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Member.

Second Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

A. Dix: It's an honour to get up in this Legislature again and speak to Bill 26, which is the Health Statutes

[ Page 12191 ]

Amendment Act. As members will know and people who were paying attention to the debate yesterday will know, the debate on Bill 26 began yesterday evening.

The minister spoke briefly in that debate. I spoke somewhat briefly in that debate, as well, for approximately 27 minutes. I have a little bit of time left. I don't plan to use all of that time, needless to say, because the Minister of Health, I know, is anxious to not just hear from me, although he is no doubt rapt in that regard. He appreciates it. He'd like to hear from other members as well. I would like to continue on and perhaps review briefly where we left off.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

As members will know, Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, deals with three issues, and I think they're critical issues for us to deal with in this House.

The first, of course — the one that we were talking about yesterday evening at some length and will continue to talk about at some length — is to implement a decision by the Supreme Court and then a subsequent negotiation between the Facilities Bargaining Association, which included the HEU, the BCGEU and other unions and the government, pursuant to that decision of the Supreme Court.

Members will remember what happened with Bill 29. Members will remember what happened and its impact. We talked a little bit about this last night. The government had promised, specifically in the name of the Premier, that they would not tear up or take away rights from health care workers. They subsequently proceeded to do just that.

You'll recall that when asked a direct question prior to the 2001 election, the Premier said that he would not do it. He said no. He further said, when asked the question: does a 48-year-old housekeeper who has finally, after decades of struggle, come up to an average wage have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from the Liberal government? The Premier said: "I say no. What she's going to find is that people in B.C. and the government respect the value of the work she does. Most importantly, she's going to find the quality of the work she's able to do more rewarding and more fulfilling." That's what they promised.

Then, as you know, they proceeded to tear up that contract by legislated diktat. They proceeded to tear up protections for working people in the health care sector that had been around not from an NDP government, not from a deal from an NDP government, but from bumping provisions that existed for 30 years at that time and contracting-out provisions that had dated 20 years from that time — namely, from the period of the Bill Bennett Social Credit government. They in fact stripped those provisions from that contract. I think it's important to remember, as we sit here in the Legislature today, how they did that.

They betrayed these workers by telling them that they wouldn't do it, and then they did it. This is the behaviour, remember, and the reason we're here today. Certainly, the government didn't volunteer to come here today and acknowledge that what they did was disgraceful and wrong, though it was. They didn't volunteer to come here today.

They came here today because the Supreme Court of Canada said that the government's actions violated the Charter rights of those women workers. It precipitated the largest layoff of women workers in the history of Canada, and their actions violated their Charter rights. That's why we're here. The provisions in question that had been around for decades — this government chose to do that with.

[1430]

How did they do that? Sometimes there are changes in the legislative schedule, and there are sometimes things that frustrate us here in this Legislature — the use of closure and so on.

Some 70 members on the government side — they were all there, pretty much. There were 77 of them at the time; 76 voted in favour.

The then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail — recognized by the people, if not the government — voted against it. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant voted against it at all stages, and the member for Peace River South voted against it at second reading.

They were all here. They decided that it didn't matter what they'd promised people. In fact, you know what the excuse was that they used to violate the rights of those workers leading to this massive layoff? You'll like this, hon. Speaker. Health care sustainability — that's what they used.

What did they do? Friday, January 25, 2002…. It's important to dwell on this, to say that not only did they have 77 seats, not only did they choose, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, to violate the freedom-of-association rights of those workers leading to the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history, but here's how they did it. Just so people understand what the Legislature was like, there were 77 of them, and there were two very courageous opposition MLAs, Joy MacPhail and the current member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Here's what they did. They have all those advantages, all that power. They'd won an election. They didn't bother talking to any of the workers involved, the workers that they promised they would never, ever do this to. Here's what they did. On Friday, January 25, 2002, they introduced the legislation and read it a first time at 1:42 p.m. On Saturday, January 26, 2002, they drove through second reading debate. They sat on Sunday so that there would be no opportunity for anybody to respond to this outrageous action, an action that has now been sanctioned by the United Nations and by the Supreme Court of Canada and that we're here, in part, to overturn today by this bill, Bill 26.

Sunday — committee stage. Really, one would do well to read the debate. Bill 29 committee and third reading commenced at 11:30 p.m. that Sunday evening — 11:30 p.m. They drove through committee stage on that and a whole bunch of other bills. They had 77 MLAs, and they were so disrespectful of parliamentary procedure and of the rights of those workers that this is how they behaved.

[ Page 12192 ]

Bill 29 committee and third reading debate commenced at 11:30 p.m. — two members of the opposition — on Sunday evening and adjourned at 4:57 a.m. when royal assent was granted. That's how this was done — in the dead of night, legislation by exhaustion after two days of debate, stripping away rights that they said they wouldn't strip away, stripping away rights of freedom of association that they have now been sanctioned for by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Oh yeah, the Minister of Transportation was there. Oh yeah, he was there. The Minister of Transportation was there, and this shameful behaviour that he attempts to justify was behaviour that was sanctioned by the International Labour Organization, sanctioned by the Supreme Court. That's what they did.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Dix: That's what they did. With that majority, that's the manner in which they behaved. Of course, no consultation, the disrespectful approach to the work that these workers did…. Can you imagine?

We talked about this yesterday, and I think it's important to reiterate this point. The work done by the workers who are affected by this legislation is extremely important to all of us. It's hard work — cleaners in hospitals, care aides in care homes, food service workers, people who provide security.

Sure, I understand that maybe the Minister of Transportation doesn't think that compared to his record of service, that record of service matters.

[1435]

I understand that. I understand that's his position, but that work matters. It matters to us. It sure matters to us as patients. It sure matters to us when our family are patients. It sure matters to seniors in long-term care homes. It sure matters to seniors. It sure matters to communities. It sure matters to the children of people in care.

Can you imagine that keeping our hospitals clean is not seen as work worthy of respect? Of course it's worthy of respect. It's the most important work people can do, and this is the way they were treated.

This is what Bill 26 seeks in part to undo — not only this disrespect for work, for manual labour, for work that isn't as credentialed as the work that they would like to reward more. This is how people are treated. Their rights are stripped away. What it meant for many people is that they lost more than 50 percent of their salary and all of their benefits.

We could go case after case that we know of, of people we've met who ended up working 60, 70 or 80 hours a week. Those cases are real. For the people who were affected by Bill 29, this affected their lives, their health and the social determinants of the health of their children. This is what this government did. This is the way they behaved, and it was wrong.

Of course, this is important for members of the opposition to highlight, and of course we support overturning, as the Supreme Court suggests, those parts of Bill 29 that were struck down by the courts. Let's be clear. There's more we'd like to get rid of. We'd like to get rid of it all, and that's one of the things we plan to do when we win the next election.

Really, if you look at this bill and see its effect on people…. We've talked at length about its effect on real people, people who do important service in our community, people who volunteer in our community. How did it affect them?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, you know, I don't need to quote back the disparaging words that have been said in the past by members on that side. The laws that apply to everybody else were taken away by this government. So it's not us talking about real people and unreal people.

This is what they did. This is their action. They did it in the dead of night in the worst and, I would argue, the most unscrupulous of ways. That's how they took away these rights, and now they're sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I know they're defiant, but they're here today because they were sanctioned by the court.

Those individuals who contribute so much to society…. We know the stories, and surely all the members across know the stories, the effect on families, the effect on relationships, the effect on all those things — how it destroyed in many respects the lives of many people. It took away from children tens of hours of attention from their parents every week.

It hurt families, it hurt communities, and it disrespected the work. So we've talked about that impact, which is a very personal impact. It impacted communities in a very profound way. It created a new tier, if you will, of low-paid jobs that in the view of the government side of the House aren't as worthy of basic rights that have been in place for decades, basic rights that have been negotiated with previous governments — not NDP governments but Social Credit governments. Basic rights — everybody has them, but not these workers.

What effect did that have on communities beyond that? I would suggest to you that when you ask people to maintain their standard of living, to go from working 35 hours a week to 70 hours a week…. There is example after example of people who had to do that because those members on the government side, at 3:30 in the morning, decided to strip away those rights — example after example of people.

You're not just taking away from their families, although you are. You're not just taking away from their kids, although you are. You're taking away from the entire community, from people who are able to participate in community life as volunteers. This is about, in a sense, social exclusion in the most reprehensible of ways.

[1440]

You had a whole new tier of workers who used to be able to support their families, who were no longer able to support their families — and the consequences on down for the community.

[ Page 12193 ]

Of course, it had a profound impact, I would argue, on the quality of health care. There's no question about it. Where wages are low, where benefits are nonexistent, where hours are scheduled as part-time, where workloads are extremely heavy and turnover high, it has an impact on the entire workplace — on the quality of care that's provided, on the quality of cleaning services that are provided, on the quality of everything provided in a hospital or a long-term care centre.

Clearly, it had that effect, and we know it had that effect. We know that was indeed the intent. Not only did this lead to cuts in salaries and benefits and family-supporting jobs for thousands of people, the largest layoff of female employees in history and many other workers as well, many male workers as well…. We know that.

But it also meant — and this is the fact of it — that on top of cutting the benefits, they also cut the hours. They also cut the hours, which meant that hospitals were dirtier, the quality of security and of food was less. This is what happened. This is the record of what they did.

As a result of this contracting-out, hospital-employed nurses and other health care workers had to phone call centres to get a private sector cleaner to come to a certain area to attend to an emergent situation. This was true of security as well, in many cases — a point that the B.C. Nurses Union has repeatedly made to the government in terms of their brief around safety of nurses, critical to the retention of nurses.

It was destructive to the working life of public hospitals, long-term care homes and other health care institutions. In addition to that, I think it's fair to say the contracting-out and the use of commercial confidentiality to protect the government from scrutiny around those contracts meant that the accountability of the health care system for issues such as cleaning, food services and others was diminished as a result of this action.

What cleaners tell us and what we know because the government cut the number of hours…. There's FOI information, and we know this. FOI information that they were finally forced to release by the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner said that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority reduced cleaning hours by 153,500 hours every year when it privatized hospital cleaning in 2003.

The standard of cleaning has gone down. And what is the response? We only discovered this after they were ordered to release the information. The contracting-out of this allowed the government in effect to hide the information, to hide what was going on in these contracts.

So what do they say? Westech Systems — here's what they say about cleaning. Contrary to all of the evidence-based reports, here's the government's position on cleaning expressed by one of the people they hired to perform external and independent annual housekeeping audits, Dean Waisman from Westech Systems Ltd. What did he say?

He made the following public comments in defence of privatized cleaning services. He said — contrary to all of the evidence, I would suggest — of anyone who actually goes to a hospital….

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted today, on behalf of the Premier, to welcome to the precinct 29 visitors from St. Augustine's School in the Premier's constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They are grade 7 students travelling with obviously some of their parents and their teacher Donna O'Hara.

The group is here today to experience the history of these amazing buildings and to learn more about the business of government and parliamentary tradition and, I am certain, to take some photographs and notes that they will share with their family and friends when they return home. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in welcoming this incredible group of students and the adults accompanying them here to the precinct today.

[1445]

Debate Continued

A. Dix: Just to review, Dean Waisman, president of Westech Systems Ltd., in defending the government, claimed: "All the hospitals in B.C. are doing a great job." He went on to say, however: "There is no correlation between the level of cleanliness and the spread of infection."

This is the government's position. Privatize its services. Devalue the work. They appear to be experts in cleaning, although I suspect that they wouldn't want to do the work that the people they attacked with Bill 29 do.

But here's their position. They say there's no correlation between the level of cleanliness and the spread of infection. "No one has ever been able to prove that cleanliness and infectious diseases are connected. There's no scientific evidence, so to speak," he said, adding: "Handwashing is key to curbing the spread of infection."

Indeed, handwashing is important in curbing the spread of infection. But no one less than the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and others dispute this position of the government that having dirtier hospitals isn't a danger to the public.

Everybody is vulnerable when they go to hospital. We didn't need scientists, although there is a mountain of evidence to show that Mr. Waisman is wrong about this. There's a mountain of evidence.

We don't need that. We just have to listen to our parents and everyone from that point on who told us that, in fact, there is a connection between dirtiness of a hospital and the spread of infection. We know this. There's a connection between the dirtiness of hospital and the quality of care.

We also know, as a result of the bill that we're dealing with today, at least, that provisions are being stripped away in this Legislature and that our hospitals are dirtier.

What we also know is that these services had a noticeable effect across British Columbia. In rural B.C.

[ Page 12194 ]

many workers with long service found themselves without jobs when the facility in which they were working was closed under the Bill 29 revision. They had no jobs to bump into. The effect was profound in the Kootenays and some parts of the Okanagan.

The loss of health care jobs in rural B.C. often went hand in hand with the loss of jobs in the resource sector. Two incomes in a family suddenly disappeared.

Of course — and we know this — Bill 29 contracted out seniors long-term care facilities across the province as operators privatized direct residential care. This meant care aides, this meant licensed practical nurses, and it even meant registered nurses — all of whom were in fact part of the Bill 29 settlement.

While this phenomenon was most pronounced in the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, what happened in those care homes was tragic. Care aides that worked with seniors and LPNs who had worked with seniors for decades saw themselves laid off. Care homes that were loving places to be were suddenly transformed overnight.

Pay cuts for those workers and changes and contracting-out of those services meant that many places which needed to, by definition…. To do the work they were doing, they had to have an atmosphere of family. Because the care homes were forced, sometimes by contract, by the government to contract out the work, they were forced to cut the wages of their workforce. They were forced to lay off and take away the benefits from their workers. They were forced to have high turnover of workers and, in some cases, the repeated layoff of whole workforces.

The real effect of Bill 29 on seniors care was profound. They hurt individuals and families with this. They hurt communities with this. They hurt the health care system with this. They violated the freedom-of-association rights of workers — the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history. They did it at three in the morning on a Sunday, even though they had a 77-to-2 majority in the Legislature at the time. This is what we're talking about with this piece of legislation.

[1450]

All of that occurred — the parliamentary shenanigans, the taking away of people's rights, the undermining of health care institutions — after the Premier himself had promised, not in a broad statement but specifically, that it wouldn't happen. He had promised specifically that it wouldn't happen, and the members on that side of the House all stood and voted for it. It was wrong.

We here today in the Legislature — and other members, I hope, will come and rise in this debate — have to note what happened. As we implement the Supreme Court decision which repudiated this government's action, at least in part, we have to note that the continuing effect on the health care system of these changes is still being felt.

Workers are not going to get those years back. Workers are not going to get those jobs back. They are going to get some compensation, and current workers are going to get some future bargaining rights. But the consequences of the mistakes made in 2002 are still profoundly felt today by workers across British Columbia and, of course, by people who need health care across British Columbia.

This was a profound and unfortunate action by the government. Today, as an opposition that I can proudly say spoke out about this at the time, as an opposition that fought valiantly against this…. One of the arguments made by the government was that you could get 56 weeks of job security after working for one day. That's what they were claiming. It wasn't the case, but that's what they were claiming.

Here's what the then Leader of the Opposition, Joy MacPhail, said: "It's a patent untruth that somebody gets 56 weeks of job security after working one day. It's going to come back to haunt this government, perhaps in court — the absolute untruth of the repetition of that kind of statement."

Well, it did haunt the government. Their actions were in part overturned by the court. Their contempt for the institutions here hasn't been overturned yet, but we have great hopes for May 12, 2009.

There are other provisions of the Health Statutes Amendment Act which I would comment on. The first is changes that come out of what's going on at the Medical Services Commission in British Columbia really since this government came to office — namely, that extra-billing cases are piling up. Government chose, of course, not to proclaim the changes in the Medicare Protection Amendment Act that were put forward in 2003, and all over British Columbia we've seen case after case of extra-billing now being referred to the Medical Services Commission.

One of those cases, the Copeman case, took years to come before the Medical Services Commission and get resolved. In fact, the issues were raised not by me but by the ADM of the Ministry of Health, Craig Knight, in June 2005. There wasn't a decision in that case until 2007.

Of course, we couldn't see the decision. Why was that? Because the legislation couldn't have imagined that a government would be, as this one has been, so encouraging of extra-billing. We've seen, in fact, that the Copeman case was the first extra-billing case of its kind. The previous cases before the Medical Services Commission dealt with disputes between the Medical Services Plan and doctors.

What we've seen since this government came to office is case after case of extra-billing that requires intervention. We believe — and that's why we put forward private member's legislation last fall, after the Copeman decision, that proposed to expand public access to Medical Services Commission decisions — it's a good thing that the public may have some access to that, given that we have a government that has consistently and repeatedly encouraged extra-billing in British Columbia for medically necessary care.

Clearly, it's problematic in the Copeman case. It's why we would very much like to hear what the Medical Services Commission had to say in the Copeman case. We think that a fee is being charged on medically necessary primary care in that case. It's not just the

[ Page 12195 ]

Copeman case. There are cases that we've brought to the Medical Services Commission.

[1455]

Remember, this is how it works. The government — which has decided not to avail itself of the legislative tools it needs to investigate such cases, which were brought in, in Bill 92 in 2003 — says that it will only investigate those cases in the case of complaint.

Well, fortunately, there have been cases of complaint. People have come forward courageously and said to this government in some cases…. And it's a very difficult thing to do when you're waiting, for example, for surgery, as in, the case of Barbara Gosling of Williams Lake in 2006 when she comes forward and says: "It's wrong for me to go to my doctor's office and be given an appointment in 2008 and have a sign on the door that you can see the same doctor in two weeks for 350 bucks." She thought that was wrong.

Because of the way the law is structured now — and this was a law not intended, I have to say, to deal with this wave of extra-billing we've seen under this government…. Now that we have this wave of extra-billing, we obviously need greater access to that process. So this legislation attempts to go some of the way. It's not as far as we'd like to see it go, and we'll be discussing that at committee stage.

Some of the way to saying that maybe Barbara Gosling, when she brings such a case, when she has to do that…. She needs surgery, and she has to bring the case forward because her government won't do it on her behalf. She has to bring the case forward because the government won't do the audits needed to ensure that the Medicare Protection Act is upheld. She does it — that she should have access to that information.

We're going to support those changes. We believe that the approach we've taken that in extra-billing cases and in cases involving the fundamental principles of health care, there is a compelling public interest in every case in the disclosure of information…. But we will support this step, and we'll talk to the minister about how it will work at committee stage.

Hon. Speaker, I think you see together in these actions the privatization of care that led to Bill 29 and a decision that the government — surely in retrospect, surely after the United Nations condemned them, surely after they lost at the Supreme Court — has acknowledged was a serious mistake.

The growth of extra-billing for medically necessary care, which we've seen from this government since they came to office…. This legislation deals not with the successes of the government but the forced failures of the government to deal with these serious issues.

Bill 29, and what the government did to health care workers, was wrong. We on this side of the House said it was wrong at the time. It was a betrayal of the basic rights of workers in British Columbia. It was a betrayal of those rights. They said they wouldn't do it; they promised they wouldn't do it. They were warned it was illegal by the then Leader of the Opposition. They proceeded to do it at three o'clock on a Sunday morning, so anxious were they to target those workers and to take away their rights.

The lives of those workers were changed in a way that they will never get back. The lives of their children were changed. The quality of our health care was affected negatively. Our hospitals are dirtier as a result of it. The care provided in seniors homes is worse — all because a government decided it wanted to exert its power in a reckless and unacceptable way.

So those courageous workers fought back. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court, and today a small victory — three provisions of that law, three sections of that law struck down and compensation that doesn't go anywhere near making up for the loss the community felt and the workers in question felt, but an agreement that nonetheless recognizes the profound injustice that they faced.

We on this side of the House, of course, support Bill 26. Of course we support Bill 26, a piece of legislation that the government was forced kicking and screaming, via the Supreme Court in Ottawa, to introduce. Of course we support it. But it would be wrong not to recognize the damage done to our communities, the damage done in the largest layoff of female workers in Canadian history, the damage done to health care, the damage done to all of us. We must never forget what happens when a government acts in such an outrageous and reckless fashion.

[1500]

N. Macdonald: Like my colleague, I rise to speak about the Health Statutes Amendment Act, which is Bill 26. What Bill 26 does, in part, is repeal certain parts of 2002's infamous Bill 29.

Bill 29 was an attack on health workers. It was an attack on health care, an attack on friends and neighbours of ours, and it showed a complete disrespect for those workers. People that are watching should have no illusions that the changes to that 2002 Bill 29 have anything to do with the B.C. Liberal government's sense of decency. There's nothing about trying to set things right with this bill.

The B.C. Liberal government has been forced to do this because the Supreme Court of Canada has told them that parts of Bill 29 are not only immoral, but they are illegal. How often is it that this Legislature passes legislation that is condemned by the International Labour Organization of the UN? How often does that happen? It is condemned by other parts of the UN, other bodies of the UN, and the Supreme Court of Canada rules it illegal. How often does that happen?

There is a typical lack of shame from this Premier and from the government. If the Premier could get away with not listening to the Supreme Court, he would. So there's nothing about this that has to do with any sense of decency. We need to remember some of the background, because the background is important.

In 2001, as the Premier was moving around the province, running to take over government, he went in front of health workers and told them to their faces that contracts would not be ripped up. He knew what the

[ Page 12196 ]

contracts were. He understood all the facts that he needed to understand, and he told them to their face: "You can trust me. We will not rip up your contracts."

Well, we can see what happened. Not only was that word broken, but the actions were even illegal. That is the history. That is what is going on. That is the history of this government, and that is what Bill 26 is here to try to correct. As I said, it has everything to do with the Supreme Court of Canada forcing this government to do one tiny bit that's decent.

The Premier also told those workers that he had no privatization agenda. But what we have seen continuously is that whether it's health care or anything else, there is an attempt to sell off this province very often to people very closely connected to B.C. Liberals as either donors or B.C. Liberal insiders. That is the consistent pattern.

Well, I think one of the strange things is that when you look at that 2001 New Era document, you cannot quote from it without a sense of irony. Everything that's talked about, whether it's — what? — the most open and accountable…. It's hard to say it with a straight face, because the things that were promised have turned out to be the complete opposite. It's Orwellian, but that is the reality.

In terms of timing, the Premier was barely in the door of this Legislature, having taken control of the levers of power, and the commitments he had made were almost immediately broken. There is no sense that they were commitments that were genuinely given. One can have no sense that that was the case. Whether it's B.C. Rail — that promise not to sell B.C. Rail and the argument that a thousand-year lease is somehow not a sale…. Whether it's something like that or the promise not to have political hirings and then hire the past president of the B.C. Liberal Party…. I mean, there's a whole list of things.

[1505]

Amongst that list was the promise that they were not going to rip up contracts for health workers, and they step in here and do it. They do it in the most draconian way. They have a majority — 77 to 2 — and they still have to bend rules and bend rules and use their majority to ram through legislation that the UN condemns, that the people of B.C. condemn and that the Supreme Court says is, at least in part, illegal.

What were some of the implications? I just want to remind people, too, that there are many in this House who were complicit in that. The Premier drove the agenda, but each member of the B.C. Liberals voted for it except for one. So the rest are complicit in that decision. What's the impact? You had a 15 percent wage cut for many of the workers that remained. You had 9,000 to 10,000 health workers let go.

If people think there are not implications up to this day, they're wrong. We are dealing with seniors concerns that are brought to us regularly. They almost always tie back to a lack of workforce. The very care aides that we so desperately need now were treated with complete contempt by this government. To be honest, it's a contempt.

That attitude is still here with this government. They think these jobs are worthy of contempt when we know that our friends and neighbours are doing jobs that deserve the highest respect. These are jobs that are difficult to do. They are jobs that are critically important, looking after many, including those that are dearest to us — our seniors, our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents. Yet this government treats with contempt those people that look after them. It's unfathomable.

So let's put one more thing, one more mark on this government's wall of shame, because with this firing, you had the largest mass firing of women workers in Canadian history. That wall of shame is filled with other things. It's the same government that gave us the biggest annual debt in the history of B.C. That was this government. They gave us the most bungled project, the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project, in the history of B.C. We can tack that up there too. They gave us the most homeless and the highest child poverty in five years. All of those can get tacked right up there with Bill 29 and this mass firing.

Bill 29 was part of this government's privatization agenda, and that's an agenda that we know — we've seen it here in this Legislature this session — continues to this day. The government needs to misrepresent their intentions, as they did with care with these workers. They need to misrepresent their intentions because they know there is no public support for their privatization agenda, especially on health care. People know that public health care is something that will serve people the best, so it has to be done in a way that escapes the scrutiny of the public.

Not only is treating health workers with contempt wrong, it's also poor public policy. These are people that seniors depend upon. Seniors' families depend upon them. They do what I feel is very important work. They do what any number of British Columbians would feel are very important jobs, which many of us would find a challenge to do — keeping a hospital clean, keeping seniors' homes clean, working with seniors often at a time when they are the most vulnerable, often at a time when they can be difficult as they've moved possibly into Alzheimer's.

So what do we have? We have the Supreme Court needing to force this government to do anything that can in any way be called decent in terms of their handling of health workers.

[1510]

In terms of those that have spoken against Bill 29, in terms of some of the organizations…. I've mentioned the Supreme Court, and of course, this is what has forced the government to do something correct. But you also had the International Labour Organization of the United Nations.

It is not often that a body like the United Nations has to comment on legislation made in a province of Canada. It is not often that they will condemn the actions of a government. It is not often that they will talk about a set of laws and say that they are contrary to international standards. It's not often that that

[ Page 12197 ]

happens, but this B.C. Liberal government found a way of having legislation from this House, from this province, condemned by the United Nations and the International Labour Organization.

You would have thought that that would give pause for thought. You would have thought that the idea of keeping promises you make would have given pause for thought, but it didn't. They had to wait until the Supreme Court of Canada forced them to do one little part to fix the damage that was done with Bill 29.

You also had the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. So you have another committee of the United Nations turning their attention to British Columbia and this Legislature, this government, and condemning their actions as being part of a series — Bill 29 was part of a series of laws — of actions from this government that the United Nations felt were directed specifically against women. So you have that in play.

It's hard to see how anyone could not reach that conclusion. You're cutting people's pay, those that remain, by 15 percent, and that same Premier turns around and gives himself a 54 percent raise. Those are the standards. Somehow that is rationalized by this Premier.

The privatization agenda is partially with Bill 29, but it included the closing of public seniors residential care facilities. It included the closing of rural hospital beds. So the attack on health care workers was part of a bigger program.

The mismanaging of the public interest was there primarily to serve a very narrow corporate interest, and you see it. You see the companies that donated, the companies that are connected to this government, which have benefited from these sorts of programs. You see Retirement Concepts and so on — there's a whole list of them — which have benefited from this, but you cannot say that was in any way in the public interest.

Time and time again, this government chooses a very narrow corporate interest and puts that ahead of the wider public interest. You see it with the B.C. Rail giveaway, because it was a giveaway. You see it today with the B.C. energy plan giveaways. You see it with the forestry and the collapse it has caused there. You see it with the convention centre expansion — all of those.

Bill 29 was part of a pattern of privatization that has done incredible damage. As Bill 26 works in some way to repair a small part of that damage, it is something that, of course, you have to push and then work to correct the rest of the damage that was done with Bill 29.

So what do we have here? We have a history of broken promises. We see contempt for health workers, we see failed care for seniors, and we again see a history of sloppy management.

I know that all the colleagues here, the NDP, want an opportunity to speak on this. I'm going to pass over now to one of my colleagues.

I'll finish with just mentioning the pride that NDPers feel in the two MLAs that we had here between 2001 and 2005 and the pride that we had in their fight to try to stop this. I think people need to know that an NDP government believes in respecting those that do important work like this. With that, I turn over to my colleague. Thank you for the opportunity.

[1515]

R. Chouhan: Given that I am in the middle of my budget estimates debate, my remarks are going to be quite short. But I must say that it's a great day. It's a great day for me to stand up and tell this government and the members on that side how wrong they were in passing Bill 29. That was the largest mass firing of health care workers in the history of Canada. It was a complete destruction of our health care system.

It was a sad day when Bill 29 was passed and the workers who had worked in the system for years and years and years were told that they didn't mean anything, that their contribution was not recognized and that from that day on, they should just leave as if they had never existed. It was a shameful day. It was a sad day.

In November of 2000 the Premier met with the newspaper of the Hospital Employees Union, called The Guardian . When he met with the editors of our newspaper The Guardian , the conversation between the Premier — he was the opposition leader at that time — and the HEU members was very candid, open and blunt. One of the editors of The Guardian who interviewed the Premier at that time asked this question — and I'm going to read: "Monitoring the pulse of HEU members, their sense of a Gordon Campbell government would be the privatization of health care service and their jobs."

The Premier — at that time the opposition leader — answered:

"I don't think they have to worry about it. Their sense should be that I and the B.C. Liberals recognize the importance of HEU workers to the public health care system. They are front-line workers who are necessary. You can't talk to anyone in the health care system who does not recognize that, and I want HEU workers, like other workers in the public health care system or in the public service, to recognize their value, and we will value them."

Madam Speaker, I think I can't use the "l" word in this House. It's unparliamentary, and I won't use it. But I must say that what the Premier at that time told the editors of The Guardian …. He did not tell the truth. He totally misrepresented himself.

Then the next question was asked. A 48-year-old housekeeper who has finally, after decades of struggle, come up to the average wage in B.C. — does she have anything to worry about in terms of privatization from his government? The Premier, the opposition leader at that time, said: "I say no. What she's going to find is that people in British Columbia and the government are recognizing the value of the work she does. More importantly, she's going to find the quality of work she's able to do is more rewarding and fulfilling."

Deputy Speaker: Member, after consultation with the Clerk, I think that to say something that skirts the edge of being unparliamentary…. You need to be very careful, and to say something in another way is

[ Page 12198 ]

actually being unparliamentary. So I think I'd like to remind you of that.

[1520]

R. Chouhan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will keep that in mind.

The next question was asked, and I want to make sure that it's on the record: "One of the things that's novel about health reform in B.C. has been the employment security agreement, or the health labour accord. In the past you have said you would rip it up. What's your position today?"

He answered: "First of all, I don't believe in ripping up agreements." Another joke. "I wasn't happy with the health labour accord, and I said that quite clearly in 1995. Having said that, I think the question today is how you maintain the quality and the talent of the people who are in this system. I have never said I would tear up agreements. I said I disagreed with the HLA, and I did. That's just the way it was. I'm not tearing up any agreements."

After that interview, when Bill 29 was introduced and passed, who would believe what this Premier and this government had done to the health care workers?

I have been asked in the past many times to run for political office, and I've been a member of the NDP since 1975. Every time I was approached, I said no. But after what this Premier and this government shamelessly did to the HEU members, I said, "Yes, I will run," so that I could come to this House and tell this government how wrong they were.

The end result of that heinous act on the part of this government was that more than 8,000 members lost their jobs. Many of them were women. These women who worked in the health care system for years and years finally reached the top of their wage scale, approximately $18 an hour.

With a stroke of the pen, this government took away all that service they had and all the hard work they did and rendered them meaningless. Their services were privatized. As a result, those who are able to get back to the health care system were working at $10 an hour.

Many of these women, who I personally met with, were single mothers raising children. In one case, one woman had two children who were just graduating at that time. One of them was going to go to university. As a result, she could not afford to help her children go to university. Not only that, she had to sell her house and what she had. As a result of that, that child has not been able to go to university since then. She was forced to work somewhere at minimum wage so that she could help her mother.

That's just one story. There are hundreds and hundreds and thousands of those stories that I could talk about here today. At that time 77 members of this government were sitting on the government benches. Each one of them stood to support Bill 29 — shamelessly. One of them even called the members of the Hospital Employees Union nothing but toilet bowl cleaners. It was very insulting. It was very hurting. It was so hurtful that when some of the members confronted him, he was not able to answer that.

[1525]

The work of hospital employees in housekeeping and food services is so important to make sure that for patients who go to hospitals and seniors who go to long-term care facilities, their health is taken care of — to make sure that they get the service they need.

What we have seen since the privatization of health care services — namely, the housekeeping…. When you visit these hospitals, you will still, after that many years, find a urine smell coming from the hallways and bloodstains in the elevators, because the workers who were qualified, skilled and experienced were let go. Instead, the private company hired a smaller number of employees, and they were forced to do more work. As a result, we have dirty hospitals, and we have fewer services for patients and seniors.

The members of the Hospital Employees Union are not only working in the housekeeping and food services. There are more than 66 different classifications. They do every important work in a hospital or in a long-term care facility, but this government had no regard for what they do and what they did.

I think the best thing this government can do is all stand up and say, "We are sorry," and apologize. I expect the Premier to stand up himself and say sorry and apologize. That's the only way you can send a positive message to those health care workers whose jobs were taken away, whose lives were destroyed.

That collective agreement that was ripped apart…. I must tell you that at that time, 92 percent of the employers ratified it. It wasn't that the employers were not agreeing with it. It was a freely negotiated collective agreement. The HEABC and the employers' representatives on that bargaining committee recommended acceptance. Some 92 percent of all employers across B.C. accepted it, but this government was so determined to teach a lesson to the Hospital Employees Union because they didn't like their politics, and they punished their membership.

That's the sole purpose of this Bill 29. For all these workers who are now working in the health care industry at the rate of $10 to $12 an hour, it has become very difficult for them to make a living, given that the rates for B.C. Hydro, transit fares, gasoline and natural gas are all going up. How on earth can any reasonable person expect them to make a living?

As a result, many of these employees are working two or three different jobs at $10, $11 or $12 an hour to make sure they have enough for their children. The consequence is that when parents are so busy doing multiple jobs, staying away from their children, the children are not having that contact with their parents and feel neglected.

I know at least five families whose children ended up in the wrong place because of that. They're having a hard time. They're going through counselling and all sorts of different measures. They want to make sure that their children do not end up in the wrong company.

[1530]

[ Page 12199 ]

The impact of this Bill 29 on the workers' lives is so negative. Even though we can pass Bill 26 and we can have somebody working in the health care industry, they are so negatively affected that they cannot get back to where they were before.

The private operators, as a result of Bill 29 — and I know that, because I met with them…. I negotiated some of these collective agreements with them. Their main concern is the bottom line. They are not concerned about the well-being of their employees or the patients or the seniors.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Then the day came, June 8, 2007, when the Supreme Court agreed with the health care workers and told the government that the government was wrong. That was the happiest day for me and thousands and thousands of health care workers.

Because I don't have much time, I'll just read one quote from that decision. The judges in that decision said: "We conclude that the protection of collective bargaining under

section 2(

d) of the Charter is consistent with and supportive of the values underlying the Charter and the purpose of the Charter as a whole. Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the value of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter."

Madam Speaker, you can't find a clearer message than that — that what this government did was wrong. They were absolutely wrong by taking away the right to collective bargaining from those health care workers. Given that I have to go back to the other House now, I would say in conclusion that if this government has any shame left, they should apologize. They must apologize and make sure not only that certain provisions of Bill 29…. They should withdraw the whole Bill 29. That's the only way they will be able to talk to those health care workers and tell them that they mean business.

C. Puchmayr: I rise in support of this bill, Bill 26, certainly because it does correct to some degree something that took place in this chamber — something that had such an incredibly severe impact on people in British Columbia, on women workers, new citizens and new immigrants in British Columbia.

It's something that happened in this House — a bill that was brought in, Bill 29, in the wee hours of Sunday morning at three o'clock — when there was a massive discrepancy between the government and the opposition. We had two members in opposition, and the government had 77 members.

They brought in a bill that was illegal, that broke the laws of Canada and that violated the constitution of Canada. It did so in such a way that it even drew comments from the International Labour Organization, which is located in Geneva.

[1535]

This is legislation that was wrong. It took away people's rights to bargain freely. It took an order of this Legislature to violate something that I think is near and dear to all Canadians and all people that live in democratic societies. I think the standard of living that we enjoy today in this country is certainly…. Part of that is because people can collectively sit down with their employers in an association and come to a conclusion or an agreement on what is a fair distribution of that wage or that wealth. With that, they can continue on to participate in the community and be a sustaining force in that community.

When you take legislation such as this and literally rip the economic heart out of families, not only do the families suffer directly or the children or the community or the sports teams that some of these family members are involved in and volunteering…. It has such a significant impact on the community as well.

You know, you take jobs at around the average of $18 an hour, which isn't a really high wage for someone that does such valuable and important work in our hospitals and in our health care systems…. You take those jobs, and first of all you terminate the people or have the ability to terminate them all. You've taken away the Labour Code provisions of successorship rights, so they can't assert that they still have the right to that job even though there's an imposed collective agreement or an imposed wage without a collective agreement.

You've taken a huge earning capacity out of that community. People had to leave their communities because of that. People could no longer afford to live in their communities, and people who ran small businesses in those communities were certainly affected as well.

Some of the wage cuts were between…. Well, the wage cuts were between 15 and 42 percent. You can imagine the buying power when you lose 42 percent of your income. Even if you were able to retain that job at a 42 percent loss of income, that's going to make some significant economic changes on how you spend in your community, how you sustain your community. How your community is affected is certainly a contributor to this type of wage reduction.

The ILO has certainly spoken out, and it's not the first time it's spoken out. That same government, the Liberal government that imposed Bill 29, also imposed Bills 2, 15, 18, 27 and 28 as well. These bills affected more than 150,000 workers in health, education, community and social sectors, and imposed contracts on teachers, health science professionals and nurses.

In some cases the government has merely ripped up the contracts, which again violates practices that are welcome in democracies all over the world. If you look at those democracies that enjoy the right to association, the free right to association, you'll see that those countries have a higher standard of living than a country that does not permit the right to association.

I've heard comments from the Transportation Minister, I think, when someone was concerned that organized labour wasn't involved in some of the decisions on transportation initiatives. He bellowed out: "Thank God." That's the kind of attitude that some of the members on the other side would like to espouse when it comes to issues such as freedom of association.

[ Page 12200 ]

There are many types of association. There are many professional associations. Firefighters have professional associations. Police, banks, doctors, nurses and rank-and-file workers have professional associations. That's a hallmark of democracy in the free world — to be able to have that right to associate.

This government on the other side, with the stroke of a pen at three o'clock in the morning…. I think the Lieutenant-Governor was called in about 4 a.m. to sign this into law. Getting the Lieutenant-Governor in on Sunday morning at 4 a.m. — that's how important this legislation was to the government on the other side.

[1540]

To literally shred, tear up collective agreements and throw into turmoil lives of 8,000 to 10,000 health care professionals…. It was just an absolute shock that rippled not only through this province but through this country and all the way to Geneva, to the United Nations and the International Labour Organization.

It took the Supreme Court of Canada to finally…. I think Joy MacPhail at the time did make the comment that this would probably be resolved in court someday or end up in court someday, and it did. It ended up in court, and the courts ruled that this was an illegal act. They gave the government a year to rectify it, a year to rectify something….

This legislation goes a small way towards rectifying it, but it certainly doesn't put back all the pieces of the puzzle or the broken dreams of the people who were working in that field, who lost their jobs. And I mean broken dreams.

People came over from the Philippines and became Canadian citizens and worked in the health care field. They worked as cleaners. They worked extremely hard, and they were extremely efficient. They knew precisely what they were doing. To have those dreams broken by suddenly being told one day: "You're out of a job, I'm sorry…."

Some of those were families with dual incomes in the same field, making a mortgage payment, putting their kids through lacrosse and soccer and contributing to the community, not with a great wage but still a sustainable and living wage compared to what some of them were forced to take after that, which was minimum wage. Wages as low as $8 an hour were the first wages that were paid by these private contractors.

You couldn't really call me a victim of the hospital system, but I did become very ill with a very serious infection. I certainly noticed immediately that the hospitals weren't as clean as they used to be. I spoke to a couple of the cleaning workers and heard from them how hard they worked and the pressures that were put on them.

They were even limited as to how many pairs of rubber gloves they could get. So here's a person with a dirty pair of rubber gloves, because the employer will give them maybe only three or four pairs of rubber gloves a day. They're supposed to come into your room and sterilize and clean your room and ensure that there are no bacteria.

Not to get too graphic about my personal condition, but I received a serious infection when a tube that was pulled out of my stomach cavity was completely infected. I was a victim of C. difficile , which I fought for almost three years. Fortunately, I was able to get over it.

The hospital was filthy. I couldn't blame the workers. It wasn't the workers' fault. There weren't enough of them. They were run all over the place. They were fairly new and being trained. They were in jobs that were very low-paying, and they were merely looking for other places to go and work.

You wonder, when you look at the medication that people have to be on for that type of an infection…. It's hundreds of dollars a month. Imagine hundreds of dollars a month — $450 a month — to the health care system for a period of three years. How many cases of infection or people staying longer in the hospital because of infection or people having to be on medication longer because of infection?

What's the overall cost? No one has really quantified the entire hit that this has had on the health care system in British Columbia, but you can be sure that it's been significant. It has taken some time. Certainly, some of them have gone through collective bargaining again. The wages have gone up slightly, but there are also some training provisions.

[1545]

I'm going to refer to this document, which was a leaked government document. It estimated $70 million in savings over three years from contracting-out while projecting severance costs of contracting-out were going to be $173 million. So the estimated savings from contracting-out over five years, 2002 to 2007 was $117 million.

The estimated cost of severance was $173 million. The estimated cost of health settlement agreements plus the court costs of this were $85 million. So the total estimated savings were $117 million minus the estimated costs, which were $258 million. That's a deficit of $141 million. That's just $141 million in costs for this blunder — not only blunder, but this illegal legislation that this government passed, which had to be rectified. That's why we're rising here today to talk about rectifying this.

The minister often in question period, when he hears from us the horror stories in our communities of the health care delivery system and the backlogs and the patients…. One of the things he always talks about is shortage of staff, shortage of nurses, shortage of workers. Well, is it any wonder that there is a retention problem in health care in British Columbia? Is it any wonder when the government sends this kind of message to people in the field or people that might have wanted to get into the field of health care?

The message is: your job isn't secure. You can get in here now, but we might contract your job out again and find somebody else that will do it. They certainly won't do it cheaper. It's just that the cost will be off-loaded to the patient as opposed to being paid for by the health care system that we so proudly uphold on this side of the House and that we try to enhance and certainly vigorously try to defend and protect.

[ Page 12201 ]

There's a company that drives around in the little pink cars. I'm not going to mention the name of the company because I'm not here to promote them. People are so desperate that they are going to private systems, because they care about their loved ones when it comes to home care.

We saw the severe cuts to home care. One has to wonder why such severe cuts to home care when keeping people in their home longer actually saves money from the health care system. You have to scratch your head and say: "Why would somebody do this?" Wouldn't it make more sense to put more money into home care, to have people going into the homes and cooking one meal or doing some laundry or helping with the bathing? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate way to deliver health care than people ending up in the hospital?

I spoke to one of the home care workers, who told me that when they go into the home care system to consult about home care, before they provide a public service, they sit the elder down — or the elder and the elder's family — and ask: "Do you have any family that can come in once a day and help out maybe an hour a day and do meals and that? No, you don't? Well, do you have anybody that you can maybe hire to come in and do this service?"

When the elderly people start to quiver and break down because they have no money, then the next response from the consultant or the counsellor is: "Well, look, we'll try to get you some assistance." But the assistance has been really cut.

This company is a real upstart. They call themselves pioneers in the health care field, and they even talk about developing leaders in the community to promote this new direction in health care.

[1550]

They'll come into your home. If you need someone an hour a day in your home, they'll come in for an hour a day. It'll cost you between $25 and $29 an hour with a three-hour minimum call-in. So it's around $100 a day to get someone into your grandparents' or parents' home to look after those basic needs that they have, which used to be provided to help keep seniors from getting into the hospital, to keep seniors at home longer. Now there's this upstart company.

So by virtue of this government reducing the service, discouraging people from staying in their home, in essence it creates a huge market for these upstart companies that are going to now sell you that service for a minimum of around $3,000 a month. Well, who can afford that if your parents or grandparents have been retired since age 65, and they're now 75 or 80 years old? I mean, it's 15 years on a fixed income, wanting to stay in their home, to live with some dignity in their home. They need a little bit of assistance, and suddenly it's: "You need to pay us another $3,000 a month."

That's where we're heading with this type of direction that the government is taking with delivery of health care in British Columbia. The direction that the Health Minister has taken promotes privatization. It absolutely promotes privatization when you have a clinic that says: "Come to our clinic, where the doctors wait for you." You hear that on the radio, and you go: "Wow, I'd love to do that, but I can't afford a membership card."

Royal Columbian Hospital, where there are 12 to 14 ambulances parked outside sometimes, should have a big sign out front that says: "Come to Royal Columbian, where St. Peter waits for you." That's what is happening. People are queuing for socialized medicine. Then you've got private providers that are capitalizing on the mismanagement of the local health care system. They're capitalizing on it. Those that can afford it can go and get a quality of health care that everyone should be getting, but unfortunately they're not, because they don't have the money to pay for it. That's the direction that this government is going with health care.

The bill, by taking away people's jobs, by ripping up these contracts…. Then they also expanded it to go to private care homes as well. We saw what happened in Nanaimo. Three times the entire staff was let go. Selectively, a few people were brought back, and the rest were let go. "Don't speak out. Don't try to form an association, because if you do, we have legislation here so that we can just let you go, and you don't have a legal leg to stand on in any of the provincial jurisdictions. You can't go to the labour board. You can't go to the employment standards branch."

Fortunately, the BCGEU, the HEU and the Health Sciences did launch an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That Supreme Court decision was positive. Everybody I spoke to believed that would be a successful win, and it was. Shame on this government for bringing in illegal legislation that created such a hardship and such suffering to people that provide health care in British Columbia.

I remember reading some Hansard , and I think it was the member for Kamloops–North Thompson who referred to cleaners as nothing more than toilet cleaners. I mean, what a way to look at health care workers that are doing such a valuable job, trying to keep our health care system functioning and keep our infection rates low. You know, to talk about them like they're some worthless employees that should really be redundant is akin to bullying, which I thought this government was opposed to.

That is insulting. It is absolutely insulting to characterize a health care worker like that, and it's consistent with some of the notions they have on the other side that anyone who has a labour association has to be bad. Anyone that's trying to get a better quality of life for their family — that has to be bad. Anyone who's trying to get a better paycheque so that they can have some of the things that everybody else would like in life — that has to be bad.

[1555]

Yet if you look at Canada as a whole, we've benefited from that. We've benefited from people's right to association, and so have many, many democratic countries in the world. That's why the ILO was so strong in its position. That's why the ILO made such a bold statement. They don't often come across as bluntly as

[ Page 12202 ]

they did in this case. But they did, and they did so because it's just unacceptable that a government would violate what is acceptable international democracy and impose something such as this against workers because of the mere fact that they belong to a type of association.

In January 2003 there was a poll taken of workers in the health care field; 76 percent of the workers that were polled were fearing job loss. That was hanging over them. They were afraid that their work was going to be contracted out.

You know, when somebody is working in such a high-impact, high-stress job, where seconds mean the difference between life and death, and then to have this hanging over your head…. Plus, they now have a retention problem where people aren't coming into the field. Now you have to work your people for longer hours. As if they needed more stressors on their work life, to now have to worry about what the next bout of terminations would be or what the next position or line of work that was going to be contracted out would be, and contracted out without any successorship rights whatsoever….

That certainly doesn't help the retention issue. I know the bill yesterday, Bill 25, talked about: how do we get more people into health care? How do we end up with more doctors in British Columbia? How do we get more nurses in British Columbia? How do we get more health care workers in British Columbia? Well, you know, the key component from all of it is morale. When there's morale, you don't have turnover. When there's good morale, you don't have turnover.

In my community we had St. Mary's Hospital, which was a building that the government thought was getting old. I think the other one was that the nuns who owned it wanted to retire. That was another thing we heard. That was a very strong and sturdy building. Just ask the demolition company that was trying to take it down. That thing was solid. It was probably built more solid than most buildings are built today. It was still very durable.

They had these teams of excellence, I believe they called them. I think they did something like 11,000 surgeries a year out of there. They stayed together for a long time. These employees would come in. They enjoyed their work. They enjoyed their teams. They were creative; they were innovative. There were some new techniques developed from those teams. It was a model that this government could have easily expanded on.

They could have said: "Wow. You know, we're having a problem with health care. We're having a problem with retention. Where aren't we having problems? Well, that St. Mary's Hospital seems to be doing quite well and has a very high efficiency rate, has a low infection rate post-surgery. Maybe we should look at that model and expand it."

But you know what? If you expanded that model, it would take away the incentives for privatization. If you expanded that model and started looking at building all of your surgical teams into these types of models, you would have a very efficient health care system, and I would venture that it would probably be an affordable one. It would save you a lot of costs.

[1600]

Right now what we're seeing at Royal Columbian Hospital is nurses burning out, nurses leaving the field, nurses looking for postings in departments where there isn't as much stress, where they don't have to work as much overtime, where they're not seeing the horrors daily and they're not coming into every bed full and having to take over numerous files at one time.

You know, you could create these teams of excellence quite easily, and you certainly don't create a team of excellence by tearing down one of the very few hospitals that's showing you that that model is possible. That model is extremely possible. That model is possible right now on the vacant lands right next door, right across the street from the Royal Columbian Hospital.

There's land that Labatt donated to the hospital, land that the city council and the Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union worked on, ensuring that the city had a great partnership with an employer, a union and a community. The land is sitting there, and it could build one of those departments of excellence and provide health care service that would enhance and would be a model for future health care.

In this legislation we're fixing some parts of Bill 29. I think it's shameful that this government went in this direction, knowing that this was not legal legislation. I'm worried also about the legislation that they just brought in, denying homeless people the right to vote. I, too, predict that that will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada, because again, it breaches democratic rights.

Madam Speaker, I think that this government owes the people of British Columbia an apology. They owe those 9,000 health care workers an apology, and I think if they truly believe in anti-bullying, they should all stand up and apologize to all the health care workers that lost their jobs because of that draconian legislation that was introduced.

D. Chudnovsky: I am pleased to speak today on Bill 26, and I thought I'd begin by talking a little bit about the context. Where does Bill 26 come from? Substantially, it comes from a situation that arose in the winter of 2002 when government brought in what was then Bill 29, legislation that stripped provisions of a contract, a collective agreement between the Hospital Employees Union and, essentially, the government, the health authorities. That led to contracting out, privatization, the loss of jobs and a whole number of consequences which the Hospital Employees Union and other trade unions in the health care field, took to the courts. That's what brings us here today.

I thought I would begin by quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada in their ruling on the case of the then Bill 29, which came before them. That ruling was made public in the summer of 2007. I think it's instructive, as we try to understand what we're doing here and what the import of Bill 26 is, to look at what the Supreme Court of Canada said to those workers

[ Page 12203 ]

and their representative organizations when they came to the Supreme Court of Canada to criticize and ask that Bill 29 be set aside.

This is what the Supreme Court said, among other things:

"We conclude that the protection of collective bargaining under

section 2(

d) of the Charter" — that's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — "is consistent with and supportive of the values underlying the Charter and the purposes of the Charter as a whole. Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter."

That's from the Supreme Court of Canada.

[1605]

I want to read another small excerpt before I comment on the Supreme Court's decision, and I quote a second time: "Ultimately, we conclude that sections 6(2), 6(4) and 9 of the act" — the act being the then Bill 29 — "are unconstitutional because they infringe the right to collective bargaining protected under

section 2(

d) and cannot be saved under

section 1" — paragraph 110, which is an exception in the Charter.

In those what may appear very legalistic words, the Supreme Court of Canada has sent a message to the people of Canada, to the workers of Canada and to the governments of Canada about its view of collective bargaining, of unions and of collective agreements. It is heartening that the Supreme Court's message is consistent with the decades-long, centuries-long struggle of ordinary working people to be able to create organizations which represent them to the employer. I want to speak about that a little bit more in a minute.

The Supreme Court's message to this government is that collective bargaining is not a privilege, not a treat, not a fringe benefit to be trifled with by some government that's trying to flex their muscles. Collective bargaining, the Supreme Court tells us, is our right. It is the right of working people to engage their employers collectively, because if that weren't a right, ordinary working people would be put at even more of a disadvantage in the employment relationship than they already are.

The common law — and we could get into this if we wanted to — and employment law, even with the right to collective bargaining, leaves working people at a disadvantage with regards to their employers. But the Supreme Court of Canada has told us that the right to collective bargaining, which ordinary working people enjoy in this country, isn't a privilege; it's a right. That's a message to this government and any other government that wants to trifle with the rights of the people who do the tough work in our communities.

The Supreme Court of Canada has told us that the right to belong to a union…. That's what this paragraph says: the right to choose to belong to a trade union, which is a way for individual workers, who are weak in the face of their employers, to get a measure of strength in the relationship between themselves as working people and their employers — the right to belong to a union.

So the message from the Supreme Court, so eloquently delivered in the decision on the then Bill 29, is of tremendous importance to us as British Columbians and as Canadians. It tells us that the Supreme Court of Canada believes that collective bargaining and belonging to a union is part of our democracy. It's part of what we mean when we talk about democracy.

[1610]

Democracy is not simply getting to vote for this one or that one once every four years. It's a piece of democracy. That's a part of democracy. There's a lot more to democracy, and the Supreme Court tells us in this decision that a piece of our democracy is the right to collective bargaining. Good for them, because it protects us as Canadians from people like that over there. People like this government on that side of the House that would bring in the kind of terrible legislation that Bill 29 was.

So today we celebrate. Our celebrations are muted, and I'll get to that in a little bit. But we celebrate the decision of the Supreme Court, and we celebrate that this government has been forced by the highest court in the land to come back to this House with their tails between their legs and take back some of the outrageous legislation that was put forward and passed in 2002.

Now, there's another reason why we have a muted celebration today. That's because promises made were broken. Clear promises made by the then Premier and still Premier were broken. When the leader of the government makes promises and they are broken, it is to be celebrated, in a muted way, that that leader of that government is caught out and made to correct what was an injustice.

We can turn our heads back to the period in the year 2000 and 2001, as we were preparing for the next-to-last election in this province. The Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, was asked on many occasions: "Do public service workers have anything to fear from you if you become Premier? Will public service union–employer collective agreements be respected by you if you become Premier? Will you tear up" — the then Leader of the Opposition was asked — "freely negotiated collective agreements?"

Remember, collective agreements…. They're often described as union contracts. They are not. They are collective agreements. They are agreements between unions on the one side, representing workers, and em-

[ Page 12204 ]

ployers on the other side, representing the employers. If they were union contracts they'd be a lot different than they are now, I'll tell you that. They'd be a lot different than they are now. They're compromises that are negotiated.

The then Leader of the Opposition was asked: "Will you tear up collective agreements between public service workers and their employers?" He said: "No, you've got nothing to worry about."

In fact, he made the promise directly to me. At that time I had the great privilege of having been elected by my colleagues, 40,000 teachers in British Columbia, to be the president of their organization. As a part of my work, I met in this building with the then Leader of the Opposition, who was to become the Premier, and asked those very questions of him. Do public service